spidra_scrape_logs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already disclose read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the distinction between listing logs (summaries) versus fetching a single log's full AI output, plus the account scoping and key-usage insight. This enriches the behavioral model without contradicting annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: the first states the primary action, the second gives use cases, and the third explains a key parameter mode. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (5 optional params, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and the uuid behavior. It lacks a description of the returned log format, but overall the agent can infer basic behavior. The gap is minor, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 60%, partially compensating for parameter details. The description explicitly explains the uuid parameter's special behavior (fetch full output) and mentions 'optional filters,' but leaves page and status without dedicated explanation. The schema and description together cover most semantics, but the generic 'filters' phrase does not fully eludicate all parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'List past scrape jobs for this account with optional filters,' which uses a specific verb ('list'), identifies the resource ('scrape jobs'), and scopes it to the account. It also distinguishes a second mode ('Fetch a single log's full AI output') and clearly separates this from siblings like status checkers and scraping tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit use cases: 'finding a previous job's result, debugging failures, or checking what a key has been used for.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.